Ryanair passengers held hostage

[sean1982]

right, so I will say it again, they DID try to contact someone and NO-ONE answered to them.
what does that mean? It means that yes, sometimes the situation has NO immediate solution and there is NO backup plan, because everything on the ground is dependant on someone else. How do you get water/refreshments from a closed terminal where the doors are locked and nobody answers your radio calls?

It has nothing to do with attitude. I wish that everytime something goes wrong, as a crewmember, I would just magically snap my fingers and everything I need magically appears. A GPU, a fuelling truck, a wheelchair lift, the catering company, cleaners, etc... If anything I learned very quickly when I started flying is when as long as you are on the ground you are at the mercy of others and it's a waiting game. Very little a crewmember or even an airline can do about it.

It would be like you break down with your car in the middle of the road and you have a few numbers to call and nobody answers or wants to help you, What would you do?

[Filip146200]

Great choice of thread title btw ... Totally allows for an unbiased conversation.

I am very sorry... I started the topic with this title: Pax held hostage , but this was changed by a moderator... Would that have made any difference? What title would you suggest then?
May I also note, I did not mention the airtline name once in any other post I made. Try to be as objective as possible.

What you never expect is that they will allow you to board and tell you the fuel is on its way, then a few minutes after curfew stop communicating completely!

At what time was the curfew? Ans at what time the passengers were boarding the plane? Indeed, already after the curfew (PPR 2300-700). So, there was another reason why communications were stopped. The plane was rescheduled to depart past the curfew, and probably had been given a 'latest departure time" because the will not extend the curfew for that lang for departing aircarft. The fuel was not there in time. Then the problem of deboarding began.
They took a risk, it went wrong. I say again, these passengers should not have been allowed to board in the first place.

A lot of people seem to be under the impression the captain just has to growl once and the whole world will bow to his knees.

I wish that everytime something goes wrong, as a crewmember, I would just magically snap my fingers and everything I need magically appears. A GPU, a fuelling truck, a wheelchair lift, the catering company, cleaners, etc... If anything I learned very quickly when I started flying is when as long as you are on the ground you are at the mercy of others and it's a waiting game. Very little a crewmember or even an airline can do about it.

I agree on that. On top of that, the crew can be put under pressure from the company to do things in a certain way, sometimes not the best way. That is why they crew were certainly not the ones to blame here.

[sean1982]

I am very sorry... I started the topic with this title: Pax held hostage , but this was changed by a moderator... Would that have made any difference? What title would you suggest then?
May I also note, I did not mention the airtline name once in any other post I made. Try to be as objective as possible.

ah, a moderator changed it ... not a surprise ... they tend to do that here

They took a risk, it went wrong. I say again, these passengers should not have been allowed to board in the first place.

I agree with most of what you say but not this point. I'll tell you why:
1.It's true that they took a risk however based on the info the captain received it seemed to the crew they would have made it of the ground no problem, therefore the boarding went ahead. If the fueller would have been there on time, the airplane would have taken off and there wouldn't have been an issue.
2.like what happened in this case, the fueller did not turn up and only now things start falling apart. The crew should have been able to say: right, we tried, we failed, everyone off and we go to the hotel and try again tomorrow. Now this didn't happen because as soon as it was apparent that the fuel truck fail to show on time, the airport handeling (for whatever reason ) abandoned the aircraft and pax/crew. There is no justification for that and certainly the crew would have never expected this to happen.

Therefore I do think that it is good they tried to get in the air, rather than go for the hotel option straight away.

[cnc]

handling crew going home is one thing but airport operations inspectors are 24/7 around
besides its common practise for airports to safeguard operations via handling company contracts. demanding them to be at the airport 24/7 or atleast have people around up untill the last aircraft is parked and sealed and all pax are on landside.
if you give us the correct facts sean FR can sue both the airport and swissport for huge amounts of money as they broke both safety and contract rules

[sean1982]

I'm sure FR will, they're trying to hide behind "it was an exceptional evening" but there really is no excuse for refusing to attend an aircraft for a good 3 hours.

[airazurxtror]

I am very sorry... I started the topic with this title: Pax held hostage , but this was changed by a moderator...

HOSTAGE : a person held by one party in a conflict as a pledge that promises will be kept or terms met by the other party.(Webster)

The word "hostage" is totally inapropriate in this case.

NEUTRAL : not engaged on either side

At least one moderator here is not neutral, being anti-Ryanair and pro-BRU and SN. It's his right and quite acceptable. But it must be kept in mind.

[Shuttie]

I am not in the airline industry but I travel a lot... so my terminology may not be 100%....
I always see someone who is in charge of the dispatch of an aircraft... I think they were called 'red caps' but at least there is someone who's job is done ONLY when the aircraft departs.
Until that point this person is responsible to ensure the aircraft departs... when the fuel truck did not turn up, surely this is the person who tries to solve the situation ?
Where was this person in the chain of events ?
The more I read, the more I blame the handling agents and the airport... surely the operations department of the airport knew there was an aircraft on the apron with passengers ??

[cnc]

I am not in the airline industry but I travel a lot... so my terminology may not be 100%....
I always see someone who is in charge of the dispatch of an aircraft... I think they were called 'red caps' but at least there is someone who's job is done ONLY when the aircraft departs.
Until that point this person is responsible to ensure the aircraft departs... when the fuel truck did not turn up, surely this is the person who tries to solve the situation ?
Where was this person in the chain of events ?
The more I read, the more I blame the handling agents and the airport... surely the operations department of the airport knew there was an aircraft on the apron with passengers ??

the "red cap" is a sabena creation taken over by BGS/flightcare/swissport belgium
anyway his job is done when the loadsheet is signed, door is closed and the bridge/stairs are removed
it then go's to the ramp operator who is in charge to check for FOD and open doors, remove chokes and perform the pushback.
the doors can only be closed when the pilot and cabin crew say so.
with the doors closed the flight crew can still communicate with the handlers GOC via frequency or telephone

its all very strange and sounds like something only in africa could still happen anno 2014

[Shuttie]

So the ramp operator is to blame ? As he/she didn't remove the chocks and push back, before leaving ?

[cnc]

So the ramp operator is to blame ? As he/she didn't remove the chocks and push back, before leaving ?

no fueling still had to be done so pushback was no option yet
i have no idea in what state the aircraft was left behind (chokes, external power, stairs or bridge,...)
what i don't understand it that the doors got closed while fueling still had to be done... unless it was for the cold but that means the bridge or stairs are still in place so crew could get out and go find help if the radio and telephone calls failed

[Flanker2]

CNC, at night, you often find yourself talking to no one.
Handling dispatch only works until certain hours if the airport closes at night and so do the dispatchers.

Shuttie, we don't know whether the flight was assigned a dispatcher.
When it's busy with flights diverting, the dispatchers have to do the regular aircraft + the diversions.
So if they normally handle 2 aircraft simultaneously, those days they will be literally running inside the airport.
If they're already not too happy with their working conditions, when they're done with their shift, they will jump on their car and head home. Good luck asking them to perform overtime...

Example in BRU:
At BRU with Flightcare/Swissport, sometimes they tell you that someone is on the way to handle your aircraft and no one shows up for 1 hour... A delay on another aircraft and the dispatcher will find himself going from aircraft A to aircraft C... who handles aircraft B?
Ask the SN maintenance crew. At night, despite numerous calls to Swissport dispatch, they have to "catch" a dispatcher who's driving by, in order to get the jetbridge off the aircraft, as they are not allowed to do it themselves. This results in a delay to take the aircraft to the hangar for A-checks. Meanhwile, a dozen of technicians wait in the hangar doing nothing, costing money to the company.

Everybody thinks that ground ops works like clock-work... in reality it's a mess, because unpredictable delays can occur and handlers don't have spare staff sitting around in the cafetaria, "just in case".

Low-cost airport or not doesn't seem to be important, it all comes down to the agreement you have with your handler, his quality of service and his planning/organisational skills.

[flightlover]

CNC, at night, you often find yourself talking to no one.
Handling dispatch only works until certain hours if the airport closes at night and so do the dispatchers.

Shuttie, we don't know whether the flight was assigned a dispatcher.
When it's busy with flights diverting, the dispatchers have to do the regular aircraft + the diversions.
So if they normally handle 2 aircraft simultaneously, those days they will be literally running inside the airport.
If they're already not too happy with their working conditions, when they're done with their shift, they will jump on their car and head home. Good luck asking them to perform overtime...

Example in BRU:
At BRU with Flightcare/Swissport, sometimes they tell you that someone is on the way to handle your aircraft and no one shows up for 1 hour... A delay on another aircraft and the dispatcher will find himself going from aircraft A to aircraft C... who handles aircraft B?
Ask the SN maintenance crew. At night, despite numerous calls to Swissport dispatch, they have to "catch" a dispatcher who's driving by, in order to get the jetbridge off the aircraft, as they are not allowed to do it themselves. This results in a delay to take the aircraft to the hangar for A-checks. Meanhwile, a dozen of technicians wait in the hangar doing nothing, costing money to the company.

Everybody thinks that ground ops works like clock-work... in reality it's a mess, because unpredictable delays can occur and handlers don't have spare staff sitting around in the cafetaria, "just in case".

Low-cost airport or not doesn't seem to be important, it all comes down to the agreement you have with your handler, his quality of service and his planning/organisational skills.

And that is the result of the race to the bottom price-wise. But hey, it's cheap to fly

[cnc]

i remember in the past we got calls from flight crew that they stranded at an airport/gate and no ground workers came so we told them to contact ATC and ask them to alert airport inspection since the handling contract demanded a 24/7 manned station.
but again, i need to know the state of the aircraft at the gate before making conclusions

btw flanker did you know a handler must always be able to handle the arrival of an aircraft if its their client?
if they fail the airport might revoke the licence and give it to some other company.

[Passenger]

Just a question, based upon Wiki and Flightpedia facts:

Birmingham runway: 3.050m
Stansted runway: 3.048m

Flight distance Birmingham-Stansted : 165 kms
Flight distance Stansted-Porto : 1.367 kms

Hence my question : is it not possible for a fully loaded 737-800 to take enough fuel onboard in Birmingham to fly Birmingham-Stansted-Porto?

[cnc]

no idea how much taxi fuel both airports take but lets say 500kg each and about 1500kg trip fuel

[SNam]

Example in BRU:
At BRU with Flightcare/Swissport, sometimes they tell you that someone is on the way to handle your aircraft and no one shows up for 1 hour... A delay on another aircraft and the dispatcher will find himself going from aircraft A to aircraft C... who handles aircraft B?
Ask the SN maintenance crew. At night, despite numerous calls to Swissport dispatch, they have to "catch" a dispatcher who's driving by, in order to get the jetbridge off the aircraft, as they are not allowed to do it themselves. This results in a delay to take the aircraft to the hangar for A-checks. Meanhwile, a dozen of technicians wait in the hangar doing nothing, costing money to the company.

Flanker,

I can give quite some examples were we had to wait for the mechanic to show up for a departing flight with pax! and he never showed up and then i got the message to retract the bridge because he won't show up.

It is a mess everywhere and everybody is running around to get things done.

[fcw]

Just a question, based upon Wiki and Flightpedia facts:

Birmingham runway: 3.050m
Stansted runway: 3.048m

Flight distance Birmingham-Stansted : 165 kms
Flight distance Stansted-Porto : 1.367 kms

Hence my question : is it not possible for a fully loaded 737-800 to take enough fuel onboard in Birmingham to fly Birmingham-Stansted-Porto?

It has nothing to do with the runway length my dear passenger.
It is useless to tell you what the limitation is, because you would not believe it.

CNC, there are airports where fuelers hand over the receipt via a stick and a cockpit window, there are even airports where no receipt is handed over to the crew, so fueling with doors closed is perfectly possible.

I am out of here, if I want to hear fairy tales, I will buy a book or go to the local bar.
Goodbye!

[Passenger]

Just a question, based upon Wiki and Flightpedia facts:
Birmingham runway: 3.050m
Stansted runway: 3.048m
Flight distance Birmingham-Stansted : 165 kms
Flight distance Stansted-Porto : 1.367 kms
Hence my question : is it not possible for a fully loaded 737-800 to take enough fuel onboard in Birmingham to fly Birmingham-Stansted-Porto?

It has nothing to do with the runway length my dear passenger. It is useless to tell you what the limitation is, because you would not believe it.

Euh, I don't think it's up to you to know - let alone to decide - if I will or will not believe your story. But actually, I didn't say it had to do with runway length. I just gave some Wiki-facts, and I then asked one simple question: is it possible for a fully loaded 737-800 to fuel up at Birmingham and fly Birmingham-Stansted-Porto?

Fact is that this fuel story stinks. Or better: this whole story stinks.

So I better don't ask if the fairytale at Stansted had something to do with the night curfew at Porto...

[FlightMate]

You have to consider the max landing weight.

For example:

Zfw (weight of airplane + pax): 40T
Fuel required for bhx-stn-opo (+taxi and reserve/alternate): 35T
Fuel burned for Bhx-stn: 4T
Landing weight 71T which could be above the max landing weight of the airplane.

As mldw is often less than mtow.

Not flying the 737-800, but maybe some others could throw more precise numbers to check if that could have been possible?

edit: as demonstrated by flanker, my numbers are completely absurd. Just read his post then.

[Flanker2]

Passenger, the fuel story doesn't stink. Depending on loads on the BHX-STN sector, you very quickly hit the MLW limit landing into STN as I said before.

Using wiki info:
OEW (empty) = 41.413 kg
MLW (max landing weight) = 66.361 kg

useful load limited by MLW = 66.361-41.413 = 24.948 kg ~25 tons

A full pax load 189 pax = 17-19 tons
Fuel BHX-STN-OPO including reserves and considering delays into STN +/- 9 tons

With a full load, they would be above MLW quite easily.

I'm not saying that that was the reason, other factors could also be the cause.